Withdraw ₳5M for Cardano's Global Listing Expansion - Powered by Snek
186 DReps voted · 68 with a rationale · 9 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No138.4K ₳Rationale
Due process is central to on-chain governance, and this proposal skipped the “info action” step that allows for community input. Approving it would set a negative precedent against the Cardano Constitution.
While I acknowledge the important role of the Constitutional Committee in raising such matters, I believe it is necessary as a DRep to highlight this concern. I also note that SNEK is already listed on KuCoin and Kraken, which could serve as case studies when seeking Cardano treasury funding for broader exchange listings.
I want to commend the SNEK team for their incredible achievement of becoming the first CNT to be listed on centralized exchanges. However, I am voting NO on this proposal due to the lack of sufficient data supporting its expected outputs and the returns it would bring to the Cardano treasury.
- No137.4K ₳No rationale
- No134.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain133.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain131.9K ₳No rationale
- No110.9K ₳No rationale
- No108.3K ₳Rationale
I am not in favor of this proposal at this time. There are several factors that inform my decision but overall I am not a believer that traditional financial rails on CEXs should be a primary concern for the Cardano community. I prefer that we focus on value creation rather than market exposure. That being said, if there was a very clearly presented ROI including specific tasks being funded and how much those expect to return then this could be re-evaluated. I don't feel that this proposal has enough of this information listed to approve it.
- Yes105.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain89.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes67.1K ₳No rationale
- No58.6K ₳No rationale
- No55.9K ₳No rationale
- No52.4K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- No49.7K ₳Rationale
This proposal requests a large treasury allocation (₳5M) without clear ROI or transparent cost structures. Execution is controlled by the Snek Foundation with limited direct accountability to Cardano governance. Reliance on centralized exchanges undermines the decentralization ethos, while opportunity costs are significant—funds could instead strengthen developer tooling, infrastructure, or grassroots adoption with broader, longer-term ecosystem ROI.
- Abstain49.6K ₳No rationale
- No48.6K ₳No rationale
- No46.5K ₳No rationale
- No45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳No rationale
- No36.3K ₳Rationale
Vote: NO – Snek Global Listing Expansion (5M ADA)
While I recognize Snek Foundation’s proven track record (Kraken & Crypto.com listings, $4M self-funded investment), I cannot support this proposal for the following reasons:
• High cost for limited scope – 5M ADA primarily benefits a single token, with uncertain ecosystem-wide ROI.
• Centralized exchange focus – Prioritizes CEX exposure over strengthening decentralized infrastructure and long-term Cardano fundamentals.
• Opportunity cost – Treasury funds could be allocated to initiatives that benefit all Cardano projects equally (e.g., developer tools, onboarding pipelines, DeFi infrastructure).
• No guaranteed lasting impact – CEX listings often produce short-term hype without sustainable adoption.
• Single-token dependency – Ecosystem visibility becomes tied to SNEK’s brand and volatility, concentrating risk.I believe the Cardano Treasury should prioritize broad, infrastructure-level initiatives that strengthen the network for every builder and user, rather than funding token-specific marketing and listings.
- No29.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes29K ₳No rationale
- Abstain26.7K ₳Rationale
Same as my other SNEK rational.
- No14.3K ₳No rationale
- No10.6K ₳Rationale
I not vote for this proposal
- No8.7K ₳No rationale
- NoChanged8.3K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes11mo agoSuperseded
- No6.7K ₳No rationale
- No1.2K ₳Rationale
I vote No because this proposal asks the treasury to assume significant risk for a highly speculative outcome with zero guarantees. While the Snek Foundation's past achievements are commendable, funding future listings is fundamentally different; exchange negotiations are opaque, and success is never certain, regardless of budget or past track record. The proposal's own text seems to contain a critical typo, referencing a "5 ADA" amount in the conclusion, which undermines confidence in the meticulousness of the proposal's creation and the seriousness of its financial governance. Investing 5 million ADA of community funds into a single memecoin project, no matter how popular, sets a precarious precedent and could divert crucial resources from more foundational, less volatile ecosystem development like core protocol upgrades, developer tooling, or educational initiatives. The potential benefits for ADA liquidity and visibility, while appealing, are theoretical and disproportionate to the concrete, non-recoverable cost of listing fees and marketing campaigns. The existence of an advisory board does not mitigate the core risk that this is a gamble with community funds on a specific asset's success, which is not the treasury's purpose. // This new proposal all they did was fix the error. I feel the same. 5 Million Ada will be worth $25,000,000 soon. We need guarantees for that type of cash.
- No977.3 ₳No rationale
- No378.6 ₳No rationale
- No335.3 ₳No rationale
- Yes105.5 ₳No rationale
- Yes8.3 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale